Amendments to the written statement should not be allowed if they seek to withdraw admissions and set up a new case, as this would fundamentally change the nature and character of the case.

Mukta Gupta, J.:--

1. Aggrieved by the order 15th October, 2014 whereby the application filed by the petitioners Satish Kumar and Sushil Kumar sons of the respondent Telu Ram under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the written statement was dismissed, the petitioners Satish and Sushil have filed the present petition.

2. A suit was filed by Telu Ram against his two sons Satish and Sushil stating that he was a senior citizen and sole, exclusive and absolute owner of property bearing No. S-2/128, Swarn Park Extn., Mundka, Delhi-110041 (in short the suit property) which was purchased by him from its previous owner Deeg Ram S/o Nathwa for a valuable consideration by virtue of sale document dated 21st May, 1985. At the time of purchase of property it was an open plot and was bearing No. 9 out of khasra No. 78/20. Later on it was given the number as noted above. Telu Ram from his exclusive funds and resources raised construction on the ground and first floor which comprises of three bed rooms, verandah, latrine, bathroom and kitchen on each floor. An electrical connection was installed in the name of Telu Ram’s wife at the suit property. Besides Satish and Sushil, Telu Ram has one more son who was residing at the native place in the property of Telu Ram. After Telu Ram solemnized the marriage of his sons Satish and Sushil and permitted them to use and occupy the suit property on the ground floor without payment of any license fee, they and their wives and children became disobedient and started maltreating Telu Ram. Ultimately Telu Ram and his wife were thrown out of the suit property in the month of January 2013. Satish and Sushil inducted defendants No. 3 to 5 as tenants in respect to various portions of the suit property. Telu Ram filed a petition under Sections 4, 5, 22 and 23 of The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (in short the Senior Citizens Act) wherein a decree was passed in his favour and he was put back in possession of one room, kitchen, common latrine and bathroom on the first floor of the suit property. Besides Satish and Sushil were directed to pay maintenance to Telu Ram. Maintenance was also directed to be paid to Telu Ram by his son who was residing in the native village. Satish and Sushil were in occupation and possession of one room each covered verandah, common kitchen, latrine and bathroom in the suit property merely as licensee without payment of any license fee and Telu Ram was no more interested in continuing the license of Satish and Sushil in the aforesaid portion of the suit property. In case Telu Ram lets out the property he would easily fetch good rental income and thus a prayer was made for a decree of possession, damages, mesne profit and mandatory and permanent injunction.

3. Satish and Sushil filed a common written statement stating that they raised the construction over the suit property in the year 1998 from their own funds, earnings and resources and constructed one more room set in the year 2006, again re-constructed the second floor in the year 2010. In the said construction Satish and Sushil have spent Rs. 12 lakhs from their own funds and with the help of their in-laws and neither Telu Ram nor their younger brother Sanjay has any contribution in the construction of the suit property. At the relevant time Telu Ram was residing at Karnal. In November 2012 the younger brother Sanjay got married and all the expenses of marriage were borne by Satish and Sushil and it was agreed that in case they bear all the expenses Telu Ram will return the title documents and execute a memorandum of family settlement accordingly, however he did not fulfill the promise. In February/March 2013 Sanjay and his wife quarrelled over share in the suit property and under their influence the present suit was filed by Telu Ram which was contrary to the terms of family settlement-cum-agreement dated 10th March, 2013. As per the settlement Satish and Sushil were to pay a sum of